Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24503 of 2016 Applicant :- Abhishek Alias Nathi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,Amit Daga,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,Sumit Jaiswal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Aslam Ansari
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, Sri Amit Daga and Sri Sumit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicants have moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1034 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302/34, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Devband, District Saharanpur.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned senior counsel for the applicants is that in the FIR eight persons were named and all were assigned the role of assault by lathi, danda and pistol; subsequently witnesses were examined, namely, Sher Singh and Shiv Kumar and all they have given different versions as the number of accused persons is being changed i.e. somewhere two accused persons, somewhere three accused persons and somewhere four accused persons; as per the postmortem examination report there is only one gunshot wound of entry and it is difficult to say at this stage as to who is the author of the said injury. It is lastly contended that the accused applicants are in jail since 1.1.2016 with no previous criminal history and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicants Abhishek @ Nathi and Durgesh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicants shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicants shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Kuldeep